Posts by aqwsed12345

6

Baptism on Fire

by peacefulpete in

going through justin martyr's dialogue with trypho yesterday, i found a variation on the baptism scene :.

88. and let this be a proof to you, namely, what i told you was done by the magi from arabia, who as soon as the child was born came to worship him, for even at his birth he was in possession of his power; and as he grew up like all other men, by using the fitting means, he assigned its own [requirements] to each development, and was sustained by all kinds of nourishment, and waited for thirty years, more or less, until john appeared before him as the herald of his approach, and preceded him in the way of baptism, as i have already shown.

and then, when jesus had gone to the river jordan, where john was baptizing, and when he had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the jordan; and when he came out of the water, the holy ghost lighted on him like a dove, [as] the apostles of this very christ of ours wrote.

aqwsed12345

Baptism of blood, that is, martyrdom, substitutes for water baptism. It is granted to those who suffer martyrdom for their Christian faith or for the defense of a Christian virtue, since the Lord said: “But whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Mt 10:39) According to the universal teaching of theologians, martyrdom is the patient (non-resistant) endurance of mortal torments for Christ. If any one of the three elements indicated here is missing, it can no longer be considered martyrdom (e.g., the suffering and death of soldiers in war) (cf. Thom. III q. 124 a. 3; cf. Supl. q. 96 a. 6 ad 11; August. Epist. 89, 2; in Ps 34, 2.13; cf. I 153). However, neither desire nor baptism of blood has the sacramental character of baptism. These are rather expressions of the desire for baptism than of the actual sacramental baptism itself.

Already in the Sermon on the Mount, Christ proclaims: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt 5:10; cf. Mk 10:38; Lk 12:50) Then: “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven.” (Mt 10:32; cf. Mt 10:39; 16:28; Mk 8:35) “Whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.” (Lk 9:24; cf. Jn 12:25) “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.” (Jn 15:13) The Revelation sees the martyrs in the triumphal procession of the heavenly Jerusalem: “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night.” (Rev 7:14–15)

Tradition gives expression to this conviction both in theory and in practice. In theory: “We also have a second bath, which is also unique, namely the bath of blood, of which the Savior says: I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished.” (Lk 12:50) “This is the baptism which replaces the water baptism not received, and restores the one that was lost.” (Tertullian, De Baptismo 16) Cyprian says of the catechumen martyrs: “They are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism, but are baptized in the most glorious and effective way, in the baptism of blood.” According to Saint Augustine, martyrdom has the same efficacy for the forgiveness of sins as water baptism (Cypr. Epist. 73, 22; August. De Civitate Dei XIII 7; Epist. 265, 4; Symbolum ad catechumenos 3, 4). The Greeks speak in the same way (Irenaeus III 16, 4; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 3, 10; Chrysostom, Homily on the Martyrdom of Lucian 2 [M 50, 522]). This profession of faith is confirmed by the Church’s practice: unbaptized martyrs were honored equally with the baptized (Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity 21; Emmerentiana – foster sister of Saint Agnes); and in the feast of the Holy Innocents, from the beginning, it was precisely martyrdom and the heavenly crown gained through martyrdom that were celebrated: “age still unfit for battle was already fit for victory.” (Cypr. Epist. 56, 6; cf. Iren. III 16, 4)

The Roman Martyrology reports on many saints who received only baptism of blood, for when they converted after seeing the martyrdom of Christians and professed themselves as Christians, they were immediately seized and executed. Even young children can receive baptism of blood if they are killed for Christ or for their Christian faith. Such were the infants of Bethlehem, whom Herod had killed, and whose feast the Church celebrates on December 28.

The believing mind first establishes the fact: According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, the power of baptism comes from its identification with the Passion of Jesus Christ and its connection with His cross (Thom. III q. 66 a. 11). This may happen in the ordinary, sacramental way through water baptism; or in an extraordinary, psychic way through perfect love, in which one gives oneself without reserve; and finally, by a special privilege of God, through suffering willingly undertaken for Christ and borne in His spirit, as the greatest proof of love: “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.” (Jn 15:13)

Then it establishes its efficacy:
a) Baptism of blood agrees with baptism of desire in that it does not impart the sacramental character; but it agrees with water baptism in that it remits all sins and punishments. This is sufficiently indicated by the previously cited statements of Scripture, and is confirmed by the ancient proverb: “He is unjust to the martyr who prays for the martyr.” (August. Sermo 159, 1; cf. In Joannem 84; Thom. III q. 66 a. 12 ad 1)
b) It exercises this efficacy almost as a physical effect (Thom. III q. 87 a. 1 ad 2; cf. II-II q. 124 a. 1 ad 1). If it did not operate with the force of a quasi-physical effect, it would not justify infants, and it would be difficult to understand how it remits all sins and punishments (as water baptism does). When we attribute this efficacy almost as a physical effect, we mean that the torturers are not the instruments chosen by God for the communication of grace, as is the sacramental sign. Why was baptism of blood not included by the Council of Trent in the enumeration of the means of rebirth, along with water and desire baptism? Clearly because baptism of blood always presupposes the wickedness of persecutors, which God does not will; and therefore martyrdom cannot simply and in all respects (simpliciter) be regarded as an instrument of spiritual rebirth willed by God. Martyrdom belongs to the category about which Saint Augustine says: “God prefers to bring good out of evil than to allow no evil at all” (I 484): “For those who love God, all things work together for good.”

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat

In the intertestamental and Second Temple periods, Jewish literature explored a wide range of theological ideas, including personalized portrayals of Wisdom (cf. Proverbs 8), the Logos (notably in Philo), the Memra (in Targums), the Shekinah (Divine Presence), and the Angel of the Lord in Genesis and Exodus. However, it is crucial to recognize that these were literary, not doctrinal, developments. Judaism at that time had no central theological authority defining the nature of these concepts. Instead, we find a variety of Jewish voices wrestling with how to maintain monotheism while affirming God’s activity within the world in tangible, personal terms. Importantly, some of these figures are depicted in personal terms, despite the claim to the contrary. For example:

Wisdom in Proverbs 8 speaks and acts as an agent in creation (vv. 22–31).
The Angel of the Lord speaks as God, bears God's name, forgives sins (cf. Exodus 23:20–21), and is identified as YHWH himself in multiple passages (e.g., Genesis 16:10–13; Exodus 3:2–6).
Philo’s Logos functions as God's agent in creation, providence, and revelation, and while not personal in the Christian sense, he is more than a mere metaphor.

These Jewish ideas laid the intellectual and theological groundwork for Christian Trinitarianism. They were not a contradiction of it, but a seedbed in which the doctrine later found mature expression after the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ forced the early Church to articulate more precisely who Jesus is.

The argument assumes a false dichotomy: that if something is personal, it must be created and subordinate to God, and if it is uncreated, it must lack personhood. This is a philosophically and theologically unjustified leap. Trinitarianism, grounded in divine revelation and clarified over time, does not argue that God is three beings but that God is one being in three persons — a distinction rooted in the ontological unity of the divine nature and the relational distinctions among the persons. The early Church concluded from the evidence of Scripture that:

The Father is God.
The Son is God (John 1:1; 20:28; Colossians 2:9).
The Spirit is God (Acts 5:3–4; 1 Corinthians 2:10–11).
Yet there is one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:6).

This is not derived from pagan ideas or philosophical speculation alone but from grappling with revelation — particularly in the person of Jesus Christ.

The claim that subordination of the Son (or Wisdom, or Logos) implies inequality of nature misunderstands both Jewish categories and the doctrine of the Trinity. Within the Trinity, functional subordination (e.g., the Son is sent by the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son) does not imply ontological inferiority. Jesus himself declared: “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) — but this was said in the context of his incarnation, not of his eternal divine nature. Philippians 2:6–7 is explicit: though Jesus was in the form of God, he humbled himself, taking on the nature of a servant. His subordination was voluntary, rooted in the economic (salvific) order, not the ontological order of the Trinity.

The objection falsely claims that early Christianity, up until the 4th century, held that Jesus was a created being — a position compatible with Jehovah’s Witnesses’ theology. This is historically inaccurate. Well before the Council of Nicaea (325), Church Fathers affirmed the eternity and deity of Christ:

Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century): “[Jesus Christ] is God in man, life in death, … the Son of Mary and of God.” (Letter to the Ephesians, 7.2)
Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century): refers to Christ as “God” (Dialogue with Trypho, 128).
Irenaeus (late 2nd century): says the Son is “eternally co-existing with the Father.” (Against Heresies, 2.30.9)

The idea that the Son is begotten of the Father does not imply createdness. The Nicene Creed clarified this: “begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.” The Church rejected Arius’ claim that “there was a time when the Son was not” — a claim much closer to JW theology than anything biblical or apostolic.

The claim that Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation” does not mean he is the first created being. The Greek word prōtotokos (πρωτότοκος) often means preeminent heir, not necessarily first in time. Psalm 89:27 calls David “firstborn,” though he was the youngest son of Jesse. In Colossians 1:15–17, Jesus is said to be the one “through whom all things were created” and who holds all things together. That cannot be said of a creature.

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

aqwsed12345

“And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel.”
— Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues, §146 (English from C.D. Yonge translation)

This passage has been misinterpreted to argue that the Logos is a created angel or the first created being—the very claim of Arians and modern Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, Philo is not describing a created being but rather a divine manifestation of God's activity, functioning as an intermediary—not a literal creature. In §145, he says:

“The Word is the eldest-born image of God.”
“πρωτότοκος εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος”

Here “πρωτότοκος” (firstborn) is used metaphorically, in the Hellenistic Jewish Platonic tradition, not in a biological or ontological sense of creation. Philo often personifies Logos (λόγος) as God’s instrument in creation, not as a created being. For Philo, the Logos is:

God’s rational principle,
His image,
The instrument through which the visible world was fashioned.

Compare §148:

“For the Word is the eldest-born image of God.”

This echoes Wisdom 7:25–26 and Proverbs 8, where Wisdom is God’s agent but not a creature. The firstborn language is figurative: the Logos is the chief, the archetype, not the first in a sequence of created beings. Yes, Philo calls the Logos:

“the eldest of his angels, the archangel of many names…”
Greek: “πρεσβύτατος τῶν ἀγγέλων… ἀρχάγγελος πολλῶν ὀνομάτων”

But Philo is not saying the Logos is one of the angels. Rather, in Hellenistic thought, “angel” could denote a messenger, and Philo uses angelic language metaphorically to describe divine intermediaries. The Logos is above angels and serves as their archetype:

He is the Word through whom God speaks.
He is the Image of God.
He is the archangel in the sense of being the highest manifestation of God’s revelation—not a being created alongside angels.

As David Winston (in Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria) rightly notes, Philo's Logos is “an ontological bridge between the ineffable God and the material world” – not a created creature. In De Somniis II, §242, Philo says:

“For the Father of the universe has caused him [the Logos] to spring up as the eldest son, whom he (God) calls his firstborn…”

This does not make the Logos a creature. It mirrors Hebrews 1:3, where the Son is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of His nature.” And in Legum Allegoriae III.96:

“To his Logos, God says: ‘Behold, I give you as a covenant to the nation, as a light to the Gentiles.’”

Again, the Logos functions as God's agent, but not as a created subordinate.

The genitive in “πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως” (Col 1:15) is not partitive, as Arian exegesis claims. It is a genitive of subordination, as even D.B. Wallace notes in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 103–104. Paul means “the Firstborn over all creation,” not “the firstborn among created things.” That parallels Psalm 89:27 (LXX): “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” The term denotes rank and authority, not origin.

To sum up, Philo’s use of “firstborn” and “archangel” language is Platonic, metaphorical, and theological, not ontological in the Arian sense. The Logos is:

Not created/made/came into being,
Not subordinate by nature,
Not one among angels, but the supreme manifestation of God’s wisdom and power.

Therefore, to quote Philo to support Arianism is a category mistake—it confuses figurative philosophical language for literal ontological claims.

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

aqwsed12345

One of the most controversial verses in the Arian-Nicene debate about the nature of Christ is Colossians 1:15, where Paul calls Jesus “the Firstborn of all creation” (prototokos pases ktiseos). A common argument from those who reject Christ’s deity is that this verse means Jesus was the first created being, based on the assumption that prototokos "always" (?) denotes a temporal or biological priority. However, an examination of how the early Church, particularly apostolic disciples like Polycarp, understood and used this term provides invaluable insight into how prototokos was meant to be understood by those closest to the apostolic tradition.

Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, was not just a second-century Christian; he was a disciple of the Apostle John himself and a key transmitter of the apostolic faith. His connection to the apostolic age gives his writings and reported sayings immense theological weight. In his Epistle to the Philippians (7:1), he writes:

“Whosoever shall pervert the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and say that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is the firstborn of Satan.”

The Greek phrase is striking: houtos prototokos estin tou Satana. Polycarp uses the exact word prototokos, “firstborn,” not in a biological sense, but in a moral and symbolic one. The heretic is not literally Satan’s first biological offspring; rather, he is called the “firstborn of Satan” because he is the foremost in error, the most prominent in rebellion, the exemplar of heresy.

This usage proves that prototokos in early Christian literature, even among the closest apostolic successors, had a clearly metaphorical and hierarchical meaning. To be “firstborn” could mean preeminent, representative, foremost—not merely the first to be created. When Paul calls Christ the prototokos of all creation in Colossians 1:15, he is not placing Christ within the category of creation, but above it. The following verses reinforce this interpretation: all things were created through Him and for Him, and He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together (Colossians 1:16-17). Far from being part of creation, Christ is its source, its sustainer, and its goal.

Polycarp’s use of the term prototokos in reference to a heretic as the “firstborn of Satan” makes it clear that the word denotes rank or representative identity rather than temporal order. Just as the heretic is the leading figure in evil, so Christ is the supreme figure over creation. Moreover, Polycarp’s rebuke of Marcion as the “firstborn of Satan,” recorded by Irenaeus in Against Heresies 3.3.4, demonstrates the polemical and theological use of prototokos to convey primacy in a qualitative, not merely chronological, sense.

This understanding of prototokos aligns with the consistent witness of the early Church Fathers and the context of Colossians itself. The term is used again in Colossians 1:18 to describe Christ as the “firstborn from the dead,” clearly indicating preeminence in resurrection and glory rather than mere sequence. The context is not biological generation, but cosmic lordship. Paul’s intention is to magnify Christ as sovereign Lord, the visible image of the invisible God, not to place Him among the created beings. And this is exactly how Polycarp, a man instructed directly by the Apostle John, used the same term in his own writings and teachings.

In conclusion, the use of prototokos by Polycarp offers strong lexical and theological evidence that the term in Colossians 1:15 denotes preeminence, not creation. It reinforces the traditional, Trinitarian understanding of the passage: that Christ is supreme over all creation because He is its source, its sustainer, and its Lord. To read this verse as teaching Christ’s creation is not only a misreading of Paul’s intent but a contradiction of the very way the apostolic Church interpreted and applied the language of “firstborn.”

65

The unending and fruitless argument on Trinity

by Longlivetherenegades in

those who say they are christians or follow christianity needs .

1. father .

2. jesus .

aqwsed12345

@MeanMrMustard

You objected to my statement that certain truths about God's nature are necessary for salvation, characterizing it as a "sneaking in" of doctrine without clear scriptural command. However, the principle (Veritas fidei est de necessariis ad salutem) does not "sneak in" the Trinity but explicitly highlights that true saving faith requires belief in God as He has revealed Himself. Belief in Christ necessarily implies belief in the Trinity, as the very revelation of Christ includes the Father sending the Son, and the Spirit proceeding from both. The Trinity isn't an “arbitrary” addition but the foundational truth of God’s self-disclosure. Thus, recognizing the Trinity as essential for salvation flows logically and scripturally from the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit explicitly taught in Scripture (e.g., John 1:1, Matthew 28:19, Hebrews 1:3).

You described my explanation as "word salad," objecting particularly to terms like "habit" and "infused by grace." The term "habit" (Latin: habitus) does not imply mere repetitive behavior (works), but rather an enduring disposition of the soul. Faith is precisely this: a stable, supernatural disposition enabling the intellect and will to assent freely to revealed truths. "Infused by grace" refers specifically to the divine origin of faith—it is not a natural human capacity but a supernatural gift given by God. This understanding isn't vague; rather, it's a precise philosophical-theological clarification rooted deeply in the biblical idea that faith itself is a gift (Eph. 2:8).

You questioned the object of saving faith, implying that focusing on God’s revealed identity somehow diverts from salvation’s purpose. However, salvation precisely consists in union with God as He truly is—not a generalized deity. Saving faith must therefore assent to the truths God has explicitly revealed about Himself (Hebrews 11:6). If God has revealed Himself as triune—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—then authentic faith requires accepting this. Rejecting the clearly revealed nature of God means rejecting God’s own self-disclosure, not merely an interpretation.

You rightly point out that sincere believers can define terms differently. However, sincerity alone does not guarantee correctness. Objective truth does matter. Terms like "nature," "essence," "person," and "substance" have precise philosophical meanings. Classical theology uses these terms to clarify—not complicate—what Scripture explicitly affirms: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each fully divine yet distinct. The terms are intended precisely to prevent misunderstandings (such as modalism or tritheism) and are not arbitrary but deeply grounded in both scriptural revelation and logical coherence.

Raymond Franz’s concern about dogmatism and judgmentalism is valid in spirit. Many people who misunderstand or reject the Trinity may do so out of ignorance rather than willful obstinacy, which mitigates personal culpability. However, the Church maintains that the truth itself—once clearly understood and explicitly rejected—becomes a serious matter, as it pertains directly to the nature of God and thus salvation. It is not dogmatic arrogance to clarify essential truths clearly; rather, it is a charitable duty. Classical theology itself emphasizes humility and charity in discussing truths of faith, never condoning harsh judgmentalism. Distinguishing clearly between objective truth and subjective culpability is critical. Thus, the insistence on precise theological truth (such as the Trinity) is not arrogance but fidelity to God’s revelation.

In conclusion, your critique is valuable because it highlights the need for clear definitions and charitable dialogue. The Trinity is not "word salad" nor an arbitrary dogmatic hurdle, but the deepest reality of God’s revealed identity. Far from undermining salvation or adding extraneous requirements, it is the foundational truth necessary for true faith in the real, self-disclosing God. While recognizing human limitations and the mystery involved, classical theology maintains that rational clarity about God's revealed nature is both possible and necessary, precisely because God has revealed Himself as Trinity.

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

aqwsed12345

You mean, apart from you and your one-man "church"? There are a several Arian groups whose writings I follow, Biblical Unitarians, Church of God, Christadelphians and several YouTubers / Bloggers, and some non-mainstream Messianic Jews, etc.

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat

Many modern Arians, like Jehovah’s Witnesses, claim that early Christian thinkers like Justin Martyr denied the full divinity of Christ and instead viewed Him as a lesser god, or even a created angel like Michael. In particular, they appeal to Dialogue with Trypho 56, where Justin refers to “another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things” who “is also called an Angel.” They allege this proves Justin taught subordinationist or semi-Arian theology. However, this interpretation collapses under close scrutiny — grammatically, contextually, and theologically. When we read Justin in full and in light of the developing tradition of the Church, we find a consistent affirmation of the Son's true divinity, pre-existence, and distinct personhood within the one divine essence.

First, let’s clarify Justin’s vocabulary ("Theos kai Kyrios heteros"). In Dialogue with Trypho 56, Justin writes:

"There is, and there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things, who is also called an Angel..."

The Arian reading fixates on the phrase “another God” and concludes that Justin believed in a second, lesser divine being — a created god in the mold of Michael the Archangel. But this distorts Justin's meaning in several ways.

The Greek phrase “theos kai kurios eteros” does not imply a separate nature or essence. Rather, Justin is using the language of relational distinction, not ontological separation. In context, he is explaining to a Jewish interlocutor how the Old Testament's theophanies — appearances of "the Lord" distinct from “God Most High” — are to be understood. He is not saying Jesus is ontologically different from the Father, but that He is a distinct divine Person within the Godhead. "Another" (eteros) refers to another person, not another being. The Son is distinct from the Father not in nature (essentia), but in relation. This is precisely what Trinitarian theology would later clarify using the language of "hypostasis" and "ousia": one essence, three persons. Justin is expressing the real personal distinction of the Logos, in a time before the Church had developed precise metaphysical vocabulary.

Yes, Justin says the Son is “subject” (hupotagmenos) to the Maker. But this is not a statement of ontological inferiority. Classical theology distinguishes between order and essence. In the Trinity, the Son is from the Father (as begotten), and so we can speak of an order or relation of origin. But He shares the same divine substance. Thomists recognize this as the basis for the doctrine of eternal generation. Even Thomas Aquinas teaches that the Son is from the Father, but not less than the Father: "In God, to be from another does not imply inferiority, but only distinction of origin." (ST I, q.42, a.4) So when Justin says the Logos is subject to the Father, he is speaking in terms of personal distinction, not inequality in nature.

Much confusion stems from Justin’s use of the term angelos (ἄγγελος, “angel”) to describe the Son. But to conclude that Justin thought Jesus was ontologically an angel — a created, subordinate being — is simply false. Justin is explicit: the Son is called an angelos because He announces the will of the Father, not because He is a creature:

"...who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things... wishes to announce." (Dialogue with Trypho, 56)

This is "angel" as function, not as nature. The term “angelos” here simply means “messenger,” and Justin applies it in this sense to Christ because He is the Logos — the revealer of the Father’s will. This is consistent with biblical usage (e.g., Malachi 3:1 — “the Messenger of the Covenant”), not with Arian or JW theology which conflates messenger with created angelic being. Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person. Not an angel, but the eternal Son, made flesh.

Far from viewing Christ as a created spirit being, Justin teaches:

The Logos always existed in God as His Reason (λόγος ἐνδιάθετος) and was begotten into personal existence (λόγος προφορικός) without division (Trypho 61).
The Logos is God Himself: “This same one who was begotten by the Father… is very God.” (Trypho 63)
The Logos is worshipped, alongside the Father and Spirit (1 Apology 6). Justin knew well that worship is due to God alone.

These statements are utterly incompatible with Arianism. A created being — no matter how exalted — is not due latria (divine worship). That Justin includes the Son in Christian worship is a powerful testimony to his belief in Christ’s full divinity.

When Justin speaks of “another God and Lord,” he is not teaching polytheism or henotheism. In Trypho 61, he explains that the Logos is begotten from the Father “not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided,” but by communication of the same essence. Justin here refutes any materialist or literalistic notion of begetting that would imply separation or inequality. Thus, Justin’s “another God” should be read in light of the Johannine “the Word was with the God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). The Son is distinct in person, but consubstantial in essence. Justin affirms the same truth in pre-Nicene language. Even critical scholars who are not Catholic agree with this reading. Denis Minns, O.P., writes:

“Justin affirms the real personal distinction between the Father and the Son, while insisting on their shared divinity… this is not Arian subordination, but the seed of Trinitarian faith.” (Justin Martyr: Philosopher and Martyr)

A favorite Arian talking point is Justin’s statement that the Son occupies “second place” to God (1 Apology 13). But again, this speaks to order, not essence. St. Thomas Aquinas writes similarly: “The Son is second to the Father in order of origin, not in nature or dignity.” (ST I, q.42, a.4 ad 3) Even modern Trinitarian theology maintains the taxis (order) within the Trinity: the Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Spirit proceeds. This order does not entail subordination in essence.

Conclusion: Justin Is No Arian

He affirms the eternal pre-existence of the Logos
He identifies the Logos as God and Creator
He says the Logos is to be worshipped
He calls the Logos “begotten,” not “created”
He affirms that the Logos shares in the same divine nature
He uses “angelos” functionally, not ontologically
He distinguishes persons within the divine essence

Thus, Justin Martyr is not an Arian precursor. He is a pre-Nicene Trinitarian in seed form, articulating the mystery of Father, Son, and Spirit using the philosophical tools and terminology available to him. His theology anticipates the Nicene Creed, and cannot be harmonized with Arian heresy. To claim Justin believed Christ was a created angel like Michael is not only inaccurate — it is a gross distortion of one of the Church’s earliest defenders of Christ’s deity.

St. Justin Martyr, pray for us, that we may defend the deity of Christ with courage and clarity.

65

The unending and fruitless argument on Trinity

by Longlivetherenegades in

those who say they are christians or follow christianity needs .

1. father .

2. jesus .

aqwsed12345

Yes, God’s essence is ultimately incomprehensible to us in this life. Yes, the terms like “person,” “essence,” and “Son” need to be carefully defined. And yes, no one is saved merely by passing a theological exam on the Trinity. But that does not mean that the doctrine is irrelevant to salvation.

Let’s begin with the principle: Veritas fidei est de necessariis ad salutem — “The truth of faith is necessary for salvation.” Now, not every truth must be explicitly believed by every individual in order to be saved (e.g., the identity of Melchizedek), but some truths are essential because they touch the very nature of the one in whom we believe — namely, God Himself.

Faith, is not mere trust or sincerity. It is a supernatural habit infused by grace, by which we assent to divinely revealed truths because God, who is Truth itself, has revealed them. Therefore, the object of saving faith is not merely the idea of “God in general,” nor even “Jesus as Savior” in an undefined sense — but the real God as He has revealed Himself to us. The more essential the truth is to God's identity, the more closely it pertains to the virtue of faith.

This is why the Trinity matters. God has revealed Himself not merely as a solitary monad, nor merely as acting through Jesus, but as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To knowingly reject this is not merely to reject a theological formulation; it is to reject the very God who has made Himself known. It is not a question of passing a theological test but of assenting to God as He is. If one were to say, “I accept God, but not the God of Abraham, or not the God revealed in Christ,” that would not be true faith, no matter how sincere.

Now, regarding the claim that there’s “no command” to believe in the Trinity — this is true only in a very superficial, proof-texting sense. The Scriptures themselves present the triune reality of God — not in scholastic formulae, but in revealed form. The Father sends the Son; the Son is begotten, not made; the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; and all three act with divine authority, receive divine worship, and share divine glory. The formula of Matthew 28:19 — baptizing in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — is a liturgical summary of a deeper metaphysical truth: the unity of divine essence, and the real distinction of persons.

We must distinguish between what is comprehended and what is believed. No one can comprehend God’s essence. But to be saved, one must believe in God as He is — and if He is triune, then faith must eventually conform to that truth. A person in invincible ignorance who trusts God sincerely may be saved through implicit faith. But once the Trinity is clearly proposed and understood, to reject it knowingly is to reject the true God.

You also raise a valuable point about terms. Indeed, the debate often fails because the metaphysical terms are undefined or misunderstood. According to the classical theology:

A “person” is a subsistent relation in an intellectual nature (Boethius' definition, refined by Aquinas).
“Essence” refers to what something is — in God, essence is identical to existence (ipsum esse subsistens).
“Son” implies origin, not inferiority. In God, the Son proceeds by generation, not as a creature, but as the perfect intellectual expression of the Father — the eternal Word.
“Fully God” means possessing the whole divine essence, which is simple, indivisible, and not shared by parts.
“Death” for Christ refers not to the death of His divine nature, which is impassible, but to the separation of His human soul from His human body.

When we speak of Jesus as the "Son of God," it’s essential to recognize that this is not a biological or temporal statement in the same sense that “son of John” would be. The phrase “Son of God” is not meant to imply a separate and (ontologically) subordinate being who came into existence after the Father, or who is of a different nature. Rather, in biblical language, especially in the Hebrew mindset, the term “son of…” often describes identity, nature, or role, not merely biological descent.

For example:

"Sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2) does not mean people literally born from a parent named “Disobedience,” but that they embody disobedience.
"Son of perdition" (John 17:12) refers to Judas Iscariot — not because Perdition is his father, but because his destiny and character are destruction.
"Sons of light" (Luke 16:8) describes those who live in and reflect the truth of God.
"Son of death" in Hebrew idiom means someone who is destined to die.
Barnabas is called “Son of Encouragement” (Acts 4:36), not because “Encouragement” is a person, but because that quality defines his nature.

So, when Jesus is called the "Son of God," it does not mean He is a separate being from God, any more than calling someone a "son of peace" means they are separate from peace. It means that He shares the very nature of God — divinity itself.

This is confirmed by John 5:18, where the Jews understood that Jesus, by calling God His own Father, was making Himself equal with God. They did not misunderstand Him — Jesus does not correct them. He intensifies the claim in the verses that follow.

Jehovah's Witnesses, and others like them, make a category mistake: they assume “Father” and “Son” refer to a relationship of origin in time, and thus subordinate the Son. But if that logic were consistent, then for Jesus to be God, He would have to be “His own Father” — an absurdity that reveals the flaw in their reasoning.

But the relationship between the Father and the Son is eternal and ontological — it has to do with who God is in Himself, not a temporal event. The Father is unbegotten, the Son is eternally begotten, and the Spirit proceeds eternally — this is not mythology or "three gods," but the inner life of the one true God, as revealed by God Himself.

Furthermore, in Hebrews 1:3, we are told that the Son is the exact representation (charaktēr) of God’s being (hypostasis) — not merely a reflection, not a similar image, but the exact imprint. A person who is “the exact imprint of God's nature” is God.

To summarize:

"Son of God" in reference to Jesus does not imply lesser deity, temporal origin, or inferiority.
In biblical language, "son of" often denotes nature, destiny, or identity — not physical lineage.
Jesus is called God (John 1:1; John 20:28; Titus 2:13), worshipped as God, exercises the works of God, and claims the name and authority of God.
Therefore, calling Jesus the "Son of God" is a declaration of His divinity, not a denial of it.

You are right that many arguments collapse into proof-text ping-pong. Classical theology avoids this by carefully analyzing the nature of God, the logical structure of Scripture, and the principles of metaphysics. The Church did not "invent" the Trinity; only offered a rational and precise explanation of what had already been revealed and believed. The goal is not to reduce mystery, but to approach it rightly — with reason obedient to faith.

In sum, the Trinity is not a theological accessory. It is the name of the true God. To believe in God savingly is to believe in this God — not a mode, not a creature, not a generic deity. Thus, while invincible ignorance may excuse, obstinate rejection of the Trinity once clearly understood is not compatible with saving faith. As Aquinas puts it: "It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ without faith in the Trinity, because the mystery of Christ includes the mission of the Son and the giving of the Holy Spirit." (ST II-II, q.2, a.8)

Therefore, the Trinity is not an arbitrary dogma — it is the deepest reality of God’s inner life, into which we are invited, by grace, through Christ, in the Spirit.

65

The unending and fruitless argument on Trinity

by Longlivetherenegades in

those who say they are christians or follow christianity needs .

1. father .

2. jesus .

aqwsed12345

@Vanderhoven7

That's a clever line — the "17 heresies in 5 minutes" joke is a classic, and it captures the reverent caution theologians have when approaching the Trinity. But while the mystery of the Trinity is indeed deep and easily misunderstood, that doesn’t mean it’s optional to the Christian faith — especially if we affirm, as you do, that Jesus is fully God.

In fact, if Jesus is fully God, then we are already inside the logic of the Trinity — because if the Father is God and the Son is also fully God, yet there is only one God, then the question of how this unity-in-distinction is possible becomes unavoidable. The doctrine of the Trinity is the Church’s Spirit-guided attempt to articulate and safeguard that very truth: not to explain God exhaustively, but to protect the boundaries of what Scripture reveals — namely, the full deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, along with the indivisible unity of God.

You're right that Scripture doesn’t frame salvation as contingent on understanding advanced Trinitarian theology. But it does require faith in the real Jesus — and that Jesus is the eternal Word made flesh, not a creature or lesser being (John 1:1, 14; John 8:58; Col 2:9). That implies an implicit faith in the triune God, even if one doesn’t use the philosophical vocabulary of "essence," "hypostasis," or "consubstantiality."

The early Church Fathers didn’t invent the Trinity because they wanted to complicate the faith — they articulated it because the full divinity of Christ and the Spirit, proclaimed by the apostles and worshiped in the liturgy, demanded theological clarity. The moment you affirm “Jesus is fully God,” you’ve already stepped into the mystery that the Trinity explains.

So yes — God’s inner life surpasses our understanding, but God has graciously revealed just enough for us to worship in spirit and truth. The Trinity is not an optional metaphysical bonus; it’s the structure of the Gospel itself: the Father sends the Son, the Son accomplishes our redemption, the Spirit applies it to us. As the early Church prayed:

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit: as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat

JWs and other Arians frequently attempt to co-opt early Christian sources in support of their heretical Christology, particularly their belief that Jesus is actually Michael the Archangel. Now you cite Justin Martyr’s First Apology, chapter 6, where Justin refers to the Father, the Son, and "the host of the other good angels." You suggest that this proves Justin thought of Jesus as one of the angels, perhaps even identifying him with Michael. However, this interpretation distorts both the grammar and theology of the passage and misrepresents Justin’s own clear Christology throughout his works. The original Greek text reads:

ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνόν τε καὶ τὸν παρ’ αὐτοῦ υἱὸν ἐλθόντα καὶ διδάξαντα ἡμᾶς ταῦτα, καὶ τὸν τῶν ἄλλων ἑπομένων καὶ ἐξομοιουμένων ἀγαθῶν ἀγγέλων στρατόν, πνεῦμά τε τὸ προφητικὸν σεβόμεθα καὶ προσκυνοῦμεν...

A literal translation:

"But Him [the Father], and the Son who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him, and the prophetic Spirit — these we venerate and worship."

You imply that the phrase "the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him" implies that Jesus is also an angel. However, this is a misreading. The phrase does not say that Jesus is one of the angels. It says the good angels follow Him and are made like to Him — clearly distinguishing Christ from the angels, not identifying Him as one of them. You don't follow or become like someone if you're already ontologically the same as them. The angels are other beings who imitate Christ. If Justin had meant to classify Christ among angels, he would not have placed the Son distinctly before mentioning the angels nor described them as followers of Him.

Your implication hinges on the term “other” (ἄλλων), suggesting that angels are grouped with the Son as a class. But again, Justin writes of “the host of the other good angels who follow Him and are made like to Him”. The "other" applies to angels, not to the Son. It assumes the existence of one being whom the others follow and imitate — the Son — and places the angels in the category of “other” than Him. In other words: if A is imitated by B and B is called “the other,” then A is not part of the same group as B.

Though Justin occasionally calls Christ the Angel of the Lord (as in Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 56), he does so in the biblical sense of “messenger” (from angelos) — not to assert that Christ is a created spirit being like Michael. In fact, Justin is clear that Christ is God Himself in multiple places:

“He is called God, and Lord of hosts, and Jacob saw Him as man.” (Dialogue with Trypho 61)
“We reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself.” (Dialogue with Trypho 63)
“Therefore these words testify explicitly that He is both God and Lord of hosts...” (Dialogue with Trypho 126)

Far from suggesting that Christ is a created angel, Justin explicitly identifies Him with the pre-existent God who appeared in the Old Testament — the same one called Lord and God. Justin writes in 1 Apology 6:

“But both Him [the Father], and the Son... and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore…”

To worship the Son is to recognize Him as God, not a created being. Arians deny that worship is due to Jesus, but Justin affirms it boldly. If Justin thought Jesus were an angel like Michael, this would be blatant idolatry — which is unthinkable in a Christian apologetic work aimed at defending the faith before pagan authorities. Also, note: Justin distinguishes between worship due to God and honor given to angels elsewhere:

“We do not honor with worship those who are only angels, but we honor only the God who is above all…” (Dialogue with Trypho, 6)

Even critical scholars who analyze Justin’s theology — including those not aligned with Catholic orthodoxy — acknowledge that Justin believed in Christ’s pre-existence and divinity. He refers to the Logos (Word) as:

"God" (θεός)
"Begotten before all creation"
"Agent of creation" (cf. Trypho 62)

Justin does use subordinationist language, typical of the second century (prior to the full Trinitarian clarification at Nicaea). But subordination in role or order, not essence, was common in pre-Nicene theology and does not imply inequality in nature. Justin’s vocabulary is developmental, not heretical.

The claim that Justin Martyr taught that Jesus is an angel, or that he identified Christ with Michael, is baseless and misrepresents his theology. Justin:

Clearly distinguishes Christ from created angels
Teaches the worship of Christ
Identifies Him as God, Lord of hosts, and the Logos who appeared to the patriarchs
Asserts His pre-existence and divine mission

Justin is a witness to Christ’s divinity, not a proponent of the Watchtower’s demotion of Christ to a created archangel.

Bonus: What Do Other Church Fathers Say?

“He is Himself in His own right, God and Lord and Eternal King, the Incarnate Word.” - Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.3.4):
“The Son is God of God, and the Word of the Father.” - Tertullian (Against Praxeas):
“Do you not understand that this is the God who appeared to Abraham?” - Hippolytus (Against Noetus 10)

None of these Fathers believed Christ was “just” an angel. The patristic consensus is clear: Christ is true God, consubstantial with the Father, not a created being.